Fate/Zero - Episode 11 Discussion / Poll

[Xellos-_^]

for all the talk about whose view of kingship is right. You guys left out that Gil is the only whose country did not betray him and did not collapse after he die.

[Moekou]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

for all the talk about whose view of kingship is right. You guys left out that Gil is the only whose country did not betray him and did not collapse after he die.

According to Fate/Stay Night, he "destroyed his country" whereas Saber was "destroyed by her country".

Don't quite recall what they're referring to though.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

for all the talk about whose view of kingship is right. You guys left out that Gil is the only whose country did not betray him and did not collapse after he die.

So you're saying the Kingdom of Babylon is still going strong?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by GDB

So you're saying the Kingdom of Babylon is still going strong?

after Gil die it didn't collapse into a civil war and last as long as most modern nations did. And while Britain is still around it can be argue that the Britain of today is not the same Britain of Arturia's day.

[nightwyrm]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

after Gil die it didn't collapse into a civil war and last as long as most modern nations did. And while Britain is still around it can be argue that the Britain of today is not the same Britain of Arturia's day.

Did the Epic of Gilgamesh even mentioned what happened to Uruk after Gil died? Of course, according to the epic, Gil was the ruler of a single city which is nothing compared to Alex's empire or even Arthur's Britain.

[Thess]

Originally Posted by nightwyrm

Did the Epic of Gilgamesh even mentioned what happened to Uruk after Gil died? Of course, according to the epic, Gil was the ruler of a single city which is nothing compared to Alex's empire or even Arthur's Britain.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Gilgamesh ruled the world and not Uruk (he mentions the world was one and he was the only king?) in Nasuverse.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

here is the difference, Alex's people did want to follow him, even his enemies wanted to follow him. They saw his vision and they wanted to be a part of that grandeur.

This, basically. They love Rider so much that their loyalty transcends death, time and space to walk with him always.

This is what Saber truly desired and never could achieve with her methods (as we're told in the novel introspection of this scene): an eternal bond with her people. She was so proud of her selfless ideals that when Rider show her the vision of kingship, she shattered inside. He who lived as a shining human and proudly so, was admired. She, who killed her own humanity to transcend into an ideal, was despised and betrayed. Yet she had called him a tyrant, but this tyrant is one whose biggest treasure aren't riches, but his own people.

It has nothing to do with how long would their country lasts, or something. It's about something personal (the Britain of Saber is hardly England aka what became of it after it was invaded and conquered by her enemies lol).

[Proto]

Well, that's pretty much because by then Uruk was THE world.

[jeroz]

in the time of peace, Saber is a great role model, someone to aspire to

in the time of turmoil and chaos, everyone will follow Iskander and his strong leadership.

had Hitler not do the stupid genocide stuff, he's quite similar.

[Thess]

Originally Posted by jeroz

in the time of peace, Saber is a great role model, someone to aspire to

in the time of turmoil and chaos, everyone will follow Iskander and his strong leadership.

had Hitler not do the stupid genocide stuff, he's quite similar.

The three kings have a worthwhile to offer: Rider carries the strong bonds with the people. Saber the glorious ideals. Archer the endless treasure (don't knock this down, without money, no country has economical stability). The three together is what makes a perfect king.

The ONLY thing that makes Saber unkingly at the moment is that she regrets her path.

[Triple_R]

You know, in some ways, even the modern US Presidency reflects what Rider considers to be good Kingship.

Is the US President typically seen more as a self-sacrificial figure, or as a figure of plenty, prestige, prosperity, and pomp and circumstance? He flies in his own personal jet, which is amongst the finest in the world (if not the finest). He's often treated very much like a Hollywood celebrity by much of the media. He typically wears very nice clothes. He has his own illustrious "royal guards" (i.e. the Secret Service). Sometimes, he is independently wealthy.

George W. Bush flying unto a massive aircraft carrier, with the words "Mission Accomplished" hanging behind him in patriotic colors, while the US servicemen in attendance cheer him on, has the style of a celebratory Conquering King, although lacks much of the substance thereof (Bush was not personally on the frontlines in Iraq, of course).

Then there's that question that voters are so often asked during an US Presidential election - "Which Presidential candidate would you most like to share a beer with?" I suspect that Iskander would heartily approve of Kings being expected to do well on similar questions, amongst their subjects.

Some of the vestiges of royalty that Iskander emphasizes does live on in the US Presidency (much as George Washington himself would likely not be entirely comfortable with that).

I think this "pomp and circumstance", this sense of the Head of State seeming a bit larger than life and someone who the citizen would want to be, may be good for a nation at times. It's often easier to relate to a leader that simply wants to keep the good times going than it is to relate to a leader who is eager to sacrifice all for their country.


Just some food for thought. It's not to take anything away from Saber. Even Rider admits the quality of her ideals and virtues; he simply points out how they don't necessarily mesh that well with what one expects of a King.

To end on a lighthearted note, though, I wonder which people here would favor (or vote for, if they are American) between these two Presidential tickets?:

Rider/Velvet 2012 or Saber/Emiya 2012

[Archon_Wing]

That animation quality was just poor, but the episode itself was very entertaining, gathering us insight on the mindsets between the 3 great servants. While 2 of them want to allow their glory to echo into the future, Saber is more of someone that places her country above herself. Naturally these ideologies will collide and adds some flavor to the conflict.

Also, don't refuse a drink from Alexander unless you have something to offer yourself. It's hilarious how both Rider and Gil insulted the castle.

8/10

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Some of the vestiges of royalty that Iskander emphasizes does live on in the US Presidency (much as George Washington himself would likely not be entirely comfortable with).

Not just the presidency, those vestiges can be seen in celebrities too. Why else would god knows how many people love the Kardashians for whatever reason? Or the Kate Middleton wedding, with how celebrated and covered that was in the media and by everyday people, especially in America, surprisingly? Of course, that actually involved royalty, but that just goes to show that even in this day and age, people love figures who appear as grand and larger than life.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

To end on a lighthearted note, though, I wonder which people here would favor (or vote for, if they are American) between these two Presidential tickets?:

Rider/Velvet 2012 or Saber/Emiya 2012

I dunno. Rider's certainly the most confident, and Saber did fail at protecting her nation (major negative there), but on the other hand, both Saber and Emiya seem like they would bring something unique to the table and would both contribute. Whereas I can't imagine what Waver would be able to do.

[nightwyrm]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Rider/Velvet 2012 or Saber/Emiya 2012

Campaign slogan: Vote for Rider so he can get his B-2s.

[Edict]

Originally Posted by Kieli

Rider was forcing Saber to admit that holding fast to inflexible (and ultimately unsustainable) ideals as a leader doesn't necessarily make her a superior King. It's a lot more complicated than her, in my opinion, overly simplistic view. She offered no strong rebuttal to his arguments other than fantastical idealism, no proof that her goals were attainable because she never lived long enough to even put one of them into practice

the order of argument and counter have been inverted, whilst the considerations raised are eligible for comparing Saber's standard they are not the basis which Iskander posited, accordingly that a ruler should be the most grandiose and self-serving (note this was Iskander's rebuttal). Saber's history (the Fate Stay history) is then cited for cogency and supposed relevance, yet there is no correspondence between notions invoked and the outcomes of the same history, nor was the representation accurate of the events. Nonetheless the suggestion does indeed resonate with Saber, not because of Iskander's (diffuse) account so as much Saber's (one could say unending) pursuit of becoming the perfect king, conceptualised as the one who serves and thereby sacrifices the most for the kingdom.

as to "overly simplistic", these subjects take place within a superordinate reality, where archetypes embodying ideas and ideals are manifest. Comparisons are essentially between Iskander's assertion that a ruler must be self-serving and rightfully tyrannical to those ends, and that of Saber's view that a king serves their kingdom in devotion that can lead to personal sacrifice - as only a rightful king is capable of (to accommodate the background mythos).

whether martyrdom and chivalry are essentially feminine in reference to real-word or fantasy history is besides the transcendence of the ideas themselves.

Originally Posted by Vena

The questions raised and the answers provided by the kings in this episode are deep philosophical ones. It is a simple question, "What does it take be a great king?", but the answer isn't so clear cut or simple. The issue Iskander raises against Saber is a perfectly valid one: a country cannot run on ideals. It needs a king who can lead, who can be followed, and who can be admired (such that the subjects of the king follow in his image and aspire to be him); this requires that the king be the epitome of humanity

the difference in positions was that that of whether ideals alone can suffice; besides the claim that to lead a king needs to be followed and admired is not necessarily true, it is nonetheless where Iskander specifically diverged by rearranging these requirements to define a king as one who forcibly imposes their (egocentric) interests and thus 'followed' and 'admired'. A difference which is sufficiently critical to warrant distinguishing meanings involved and what is evidently a system of varying application. For reasons so far although it can be said that neither rendition is necessarily true or untrue, what is germane to these concepts is that they both by comparison propound how the king is instrumental and thus deemed rightful in their position of governance and leadership.

both Iskander and Saver epitomise aspects of humanity, both thereby epitomise definitions of kingship ethos, interestingly they also both promote forms of self-interest, yet the in how these values are upheld (facilitated, integrated, modulated etc) are axiomatically distinct. Iskander imposes governabce by placing exclusive value on self-interest, regardless of how and to what extent self-interest in others could be affected. Saber also endeavours self-interest but without unequal imposition upon others and in diametric contrast to Iskander's model at the possible requirement of absolute power.

You can build a nation and a philosophy on ideals, you cannot run it strictly by only that. A king needs self interest as much as he needs flexibility like a reed in the face of hurricane winds. Therein, as Iskander said, you need a king who also thinks of and for himself and not only his subjects/nation.

as above, differences are marked, yet Saber's paradigm does not specifically preclude self-interest, much the opposite it is dedicated to cultivating freedom and opportunity for the kingdom as a whole. To those ends, where and when necessary, absolute power must become the equal price. Iskander's model is predicated on exclusive self-interest, a categorical difference necessitating expense of the these purported ideals espoused and shared by both models, yet demonstrating functionally different modes of theoretical realisation and subsequent praxis, and by extension relevance of these approaches to those involved.

[kk2extreme]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

To end on a lighthearted note, though, I wonder which people here would favor (or vote for, if they are American) between these two Presidential tickets?:

Rider/Velvet 2012 or Saber/Emiya 2012

This is easy, Rider/Velvet wins hands down

The second team is just too emo for my taste

[Essa Maneira]

That Grail Dialouge was like watching a news debate.
Rider has many points on what kingship it is, well it is based on his experience and Saber was somewhat misunderstand at one point on the dialouge.
Rider shows what should do a "king" at war because the assassin show no little respect (note: Rider said to those assassins about wine=blood thing)... and he shows his noble phantasm "Ionian Hetiroi". I'd lol'ed in his ability to call a batallion of his followers. I thought "This is Sparta!" thing..
but in the end. I think Archer has a good words to Saber, "just believe in your own path."

I think Saber still realizing after the dialouge happened.

[raruku]

Can't stand 'SADER'.


real pain in the ass.

[Calca]

Well ask yourself this, put your biases and attraction to MOE-ness (from Carnival fantasm) or any other advantages that a female anime character would have.

Would you rather follow Saber or Rider if given a choice?

[Nightengale]

Originally Posted by Streetor

Well ask yourself this, put your biases and attraction to MOE-ness (from Carnival fantasm) or any other advantages that a female anime character would have.

Would you rather follow Saber or Rider if given a choice?

As a brother-in-arms? Rider.

As a regular peasant/citizen? Saber.

[Malkuth]

Originally Posted by Grey

So Athenian democracy didn't work?

Nope, lost first to Spartans and than to Macedonias... and quite frankly, despite Alex's noble phantasm brought about Athenians (since they are part of the Ionian tribe), democracy never worked anywhere, except maybe Switzerland